A friend sent me a text today, “If it weren’t for Facebook, I’d have no idea we were having an election this year.”
At first, I thought she was kidding or making a statement about her feed being overrun by political posts.
But she went on to explain that she doesn’t watch a lot of television or get the local paper and most of her day is spent transferring kids from school to activities (read the Monster of Youth Sports here on Free Voter). Checking Facebook on her iPhone is an easy way to spend her waiting time. And, apparently, it’s where she’s learning about these off-year elections.
A few things interested me about this:
1. As a female voter living in a highly contested seat for NY State Senate, she said that she didn’t receive mailings or phone calls. This is odd because many other people have stated just the opposite – too many calls and too much mail.
2. She also said that she likes the mailings and always reads them. Hmm. Go figure. So many people tend to complain about the mailings, not only the sheer volume of them, but also the content. Maybe the whole world isn’t as cynical as I thought. Maybe people really do still read….
3. ….just not any local papers. This is a huge issue not just for political campaigns, but for everything that impacts our community. The local paper used to be the hub. The source. The thing that bound the neighborhoods and created a sense of community. It’s harder and harder to get the word out about issues or events (not just those of a political nature). So many wonderful community initiatives and resources go under-used and under-funded because the local paper is dying. And no single online website is “the definitive” source the way the local paper used to be.
So, where does this leave us? Let’s go back to her original statement about Facebook. Can social media really be the new source? It’s sort of terrifying, but it very well may be true. As someone who often posts or shares political information on Facebook, I have to admit that around election time, I become highly annoyed by the number of political posts as well as the tone of them. Don’t get me wrong: if you want to share facts and information, I’m good with that; I’m not good with the petty or mean posts that seem rampant.
Just today, I saw a post: “Vote Democrat. It’s better than the alternative.” What does that even mean? How is that a thoughtful commentary on what is really one of the most awesome and overwhelming rights we carry as Americans? Should anyone blindly vote strictly for a party and not spend even a minute doing research on the issues? Let’s face it, each party has its own share of less-than-stellar candidates. Having a party affiliation doesn’t necessarily mean that the candidate subscribes to each and every doctrine of the party (but I suppose we are all naive enough to believe that if THE PARTY nominated the person, they must be good. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you). In the past elections of my husband, if people voted for his opponents strictly based on party affiliation they chose: a pedophile, a Democrat that was a hard-line right-to-lifer, and a man who, if you did a Google search on his name, would promptly direct you to mugshots.com. Vote only for the party? I don’t think that’s always the wisest thing to do. Actually, I can probably train my dogs to just fill in the circles across only one party line – it doesn’t take much intelligence.
That kind of only-one-way-is-right post is irresponsible, narrow-minded and shows that there’s no reasonable perspective left in American politics. It’s part of the concern about the connection between social media and politics. People will click and share a witty but thoughtless, utterly meaningless and most likely vastly untrue status update because it’s easier than actually spending the time to learn what’s going on. Raise the bar. Have a debate. Talk issues, not parties or personalities.
Remember: you get the kind of government you deserve. The vote is in your hands. Use it wisely.Jean Maisano Jean@FreeVoter.com